Intelligent Design and the Public Schools

Yea, well create a whole universe and then read people debate about how you did it for pages and pages and tell me how bored you are.

You have no idea what boredom is.

Yes. Do you understand its context? Structures with previously unknown functions that are later found to have functions is not precluded by either ID or Evolutionary theory. However, it offers little support to either position and is not a testable prediction.

Because you found it to be true?

This is a statement of my position. There is no need for debate when we are in agreement. You agree with my position?

For me to debate this statement.. "I found the arguemnts to be based on emotion and misunderstanding of science. I remain unconvinced." I would need something to debate. Did you offer any support for this statement? I see no examples of emotion or unscientific statements made in the article.

If you really want to debate it, make points that are debatable backed up with data that supports your opinion.

Thanks for these damn knees, shoulders and sinuses. Nice work, lame-o! Oh, and what were you thinking when you made fire ants, juniper pollen and mold, in general?

To understand fire ants, you must appreciate the twisted humor of seeing your friend, who you warned not to walk barefoot in the yard, get a funny look on his face for an instant before swearing like a drunken sailor and hopping for the door.

Hmmm... Maybe His Holiness Neehai has a sense of humor, after all. Thanks for raining on my tirade.

Shoes don't protect from fire ants.

Casually, yes they will. Sure, if you stand near a hill long enough....

Fire ants don't care about shoes, they climb up the leg and bite and sting soft skin.

What I said, casually.

Suggestion: Walk through a yard with fireants barefoot, then walk through one wearing shoes.

There will be no difference, unless your shoes are covered in talc powder. Once fire ants are on you, either on your shoe or foot, they will bite, the fact the shoe is on won't stop the ant already on your person.

Whoa! That was way too much like gathering empirical evidence to confirm or deny a statement and as such has no right being in this thread.

I will pray for your sole.

Did you read the article? Did you read my responses?
Here's a list of unscientific arguements and simplistic statments from the article. These examples are taken directly from my response, which you either didn't read or have willfully ignored. I will summarize my point, if that will make it easier for you
1. He compares ID to the emancipation movement. This is so clearly an emotional argument that I assumed it needed no further comment.
2. He thinks that science is bad for excluding the supernatural when science is not a tool for investigating the supernatural.
3. He states that theories of origins are untestable, which is a misunderstanding of science. They are testable as we already discussed in another thread. (if you disagree with this go back to that thread and show where we are wrong)
4. He misunderstands the difference between postulating something and a scientific theory.
5. He asserts that complexity implies design, yet ignores complex natural systems.
6. He argues that disproving evolution "proves" ID, which is a logical error.
7. He asserts that anything that is not random is supernatural. This is so clearly wrong I didn't think it required any more explanation.
8. He makes a weak argument about the predictive powers of ID. (this was also discussed in a follow-up post by me.
9. He makes the assertion that use of evolutionary theory slows down the discovery of biological processes. He argues that by focusing on a few probably processes based on theory we should instead look at every possabiltiy. There is a place for wide ranging research, but if the goal is to find the correct answer quickly (and on budget, which is an important factor) it is important to narrow research to likely candidates.
10. He asserts that famous scientists would have agreed with him. This is an emotional argument. It is speculation what they would think in today's context. In the context of their times, perhaps he is right, but that isn't really relevant.
11. He complains that ID is not treated like science, despite the fact that it doesn't meet the criteria of a scientific theory. For those keeping score this relates directly back to point #2.
12. He claims that there is a conspiracy against ID supporters. This is clearly an emotional argument. However, you will get an extremely heated response to such a statement from those who belive conspiracy theories (which is whay I call it an emotional argument).
13. He does a "Let's suppose this is true" argument. Again, this is not tied to anything within the debate, but is an emotional argument to win sympathy from reader.
14. He complains that scientists rarely ant to debate ID. I counter that there would be more intrest if ID were science.
15. He misunderstands theories of the evolution and the origin of life and belives them to be completely random. (this also relates to point #7)
16. He states that ID is a religious idea. I agreed with this assertion.
17. He summaries his arguments and states his opinions. I do the same. (this is the part that Kevn didn't like)


I wish you would do that. Haven't see it happen yet. Maybe that is why no one will debate you.

Sorry, I only skimmed this for examples, quoted from the article. For me to respond to a statement you say he made, I would need to see the statement. I'm not going to search for the statement you reference, but I will read it and argue the point if you want to post the quote as you talk about it.

This is a summary of the points I made in my first post (which has the quotes from the original post). Go read it.

Damn fire ants... always watch where you sit. 'Nuff said.

Ok, I read it all again. Let's start with your first unsupported statement. You say he uses emotional arguments here...

"He then opens up with a series of emotional arguments that attempt to garner support, but are irrelevant to the issue."

You insist he uses emotional arguments, but you give no examples of it.

Can you please show where he is using emotion to garner support?

*takes Kevn by the hand*

Now read my list.

/me takes Zuzu's hand, and asks kindly.. "can you please search for the quotes from the article, and post them here. Not your statement concerning the quote only. Post the actual quote and then point out it's fallacy."

Thank you for pointing back to the post we have been discussing.

At this point we are trying to verify exactly what quotes from the article (the first post to this thread) would constitute emotional arguments. Zuzu said " 1. He compares ID to the emancipation movement. This is so clearly an emotional argument that I assumed it needed no further comment."

Actually, he used it as an example of how current law isn't always the right thing. If that was her point I would like to debate that issue.

reposted and combined with recent summary post for people too lazy to look at page 1 and subsequent posts at the same time. I should point out that I am fully capable of opening two browser windows at once, huzzah.






















































































Sorry for the long post but it was asked for.

That was quite a bit of work; if only it would gain an equally useful response from our resident dodgeball expert.or alternatively:

Thank you for pointing back to the post we have been discussing.

At this point we are trying to verify exactly what quotes from the article (the first post to this thread) would constitute emotional arguments. Zuzu said " 1. He compares ID to the emancipation movement. This is so clearly an emotional argument that I assumed it needed no further comment."

Actually, he used it as an example of how current law isn't always the right thing. If that was her point I would like to debate that issue.

Since quotes were asked for as to what the emancipation emotional appeal was, here we go:



Now lets just keep in mind that the person talking about law here is a pediatrician. A doctor of children.



See, he's not a historian or a lawyer. So he doesn't have a keen grasp on his subject in the first place. Rather than well researched documentum for debate we have a rambling opinion.



My own opinion is that Zuzu should have just called it a logical fallacy or strawman rather than an appeal to emotion.



Thanks, but I somewhat doubt it.